I'm not really a fan of either candidate. Both are Yale skull-n-bones men. Both are quite wealthy and, IMO, out of touch with regular Americans. Like Ice_magick, I'm bummed that I cannot choose Howard Dean or General Clark. So now, I'm going to concentrate on local house and senate races.

On a really off note... our former Governor is running for Senator this year... he's a democrat, but not as liberal as most of his party members(and is not well liked by a lot of democrats in Washington) and he was room-mates with Bush in college... just thought I'd throw that out. I thought it was interesting...

I'm hoping that our current senator that is hoping to get re-elected DOESN'T. Her dad is our governor, and before that was in the senate for years and did a great job... Lisa Murkowski is not who I want. She doesn't stand firm on ANY issue, and is very vague on what she stands for. In fact her campaign website and info brochure doesn't even have an area that lists her stupid stands! *venting* I much prefer the other republican trying to beat her for the Republican vote... Mike Miller for US Senate! (though I'd rather have Democrat Tony Knowles... even if that would give the Democrats more power in the senate, at least Alaska will benefit from him being there!)

Originally posted by Tonichelle I'm hoping that our current senator that is hoping to get re-elected DOESN'T. Her dad is our governor, and before that was in the senate for years and did a great job... Lisa Murkowski is not who I want. She doesn't stand firm on ANY issue, and is very vague on what she stands for. In fact her campaign website and info brochure doesn't even have an area that lists her stupid stands!

Reminds me of the old saying:

"If you don't stand for something, than nothing is what you stand for."

Originally posted by DJStuCrew I'm not really a fan of either candidate. Both are Yale skull-n-bones men. Both are quite wealthy and, IMO, out of touch with regular Americans. Like Ice_magick, I'm bummed that I cannot choose Howard Dean or General Clark. So now, I'm going to concentrate on local house and senate races.

The "out of touch with regular Americans" cuts both ways. Honestly, I think it doesn't take a genius to figure out that most of us care about jobs, medical care for us and for our parents/ grandparents, education, etc. The major difference between parties is how they want to go about achieving those goals. In the sense, I'd rather my president had more experience in how to fix problems, than in knowing what to fix. The only ones IMO who really have to be in touch with their constituents are Congressmen -- and I know from experience that my Congressman, Barny Frank, does indeed connect with his voters.

I, too, was quite excited about Dean. However, I think he and Kerry are too different as people to ever work together effectively. As to Clark - he was actually one of the few primary candidates I never liked.

Well said, Ptichka. About all I'd disagree with is that the current admin not only is going about fixing problems in a way I disagree with, but has actually added to them!

Otherwise, the difference between parties blurs. The difference, as I see it, is this; They're both spendthrifts. They can't wait to take OUR tax dollars and spend 'em as fast (or faster) than they come in. They only spend them on different things.

Secondly, at least the Democrats pay their bills. They make sure that the income is sufficient to cover their outgoing expenses -- so much so that there was actually a federal surplus (projected) at one time!

Like some of the Republicans, when Clinton laid-out plans in his State-of-the-union speech about how we should SPEND that surplus, I was a bit miffed that he never once suggested that, maybe, that money should be returned to the taxpayers. That IS our money, after all! I think that this might have been the main thing that cost Gore the election. (Aside from political trickery.)

So in come the Republicans, and as promised, they do indeed cut taxes. Hey, they gave a much better deal to the filthy rich than they did to the middle class, but I certainly didn't mind getting an extra $350 back! Hey, even us liberals like money!

But the Republicans then go on to spend money like drunken sailors. Their budget actually exceeded any previous by the Democrats by a wide margin! Suddenly we've got WAY more money going out than coming in! You first year economic students (or anyone with a brain) can see what this will do. And thus is born "the biggest deficit in the history of the planet!"

And this was all before the added costs of the war.

So I'm at odds with the current administrations thinking (or lack thereof) and the other nominee has a checkered track record that leaves much to be desired. I only have the hope that, at least where the economy is concerned, he's reading from the Clinton playbook. Another year of "hold your nose and vote." I've gotten used to it by now...

Ptichka, you're definitely right that unless you live in one of the small (population wise) states, your Senator pays no attention to you. Only your Congressman does (maybe). Rob Simmons, our Republican Congressman, generally does get his staff to get back to you. In fact if the Dems persist in putting up Sullivan the lame against Simmons, despite my concerns about what the House will do, I will vote for Simmons again, who at least has been effective about 2nd district concerns.

The person that I'd really like to be able to vote for again is Bernie Sanders, the Independent Representative from VT. Bernie got me (and a lot of other older IBMers) a fair portion of our pensions back from IBM. So if anyone tells you an Independent can't get stuff done in Congress, don't believe them. When the votes are close, it's the independents who are truly free to make the difference.

Another thing. I wish that people would be more careful about who they vote for for governor (and state legislature), especially in their primaries. Governors get the executive experience to be presidents, but so often they are a bunch of mutts, like our current Republican CT governor Rowland, under investigation for many kinds of corruption, and admittedly guilty of some of them. These races don't have the panache of the national races, but if we don't fill the pipe with good people, there we will be again in 4 more years, holding our noses and voting.

This year I did wanted to understand the primary process more. I studied all 9 Dem candidates. I listened to them on CSPAN and read any articles I got and all the websites. What the media sound bited for you about the candidates, and the news they presented and spun, versus the news they completely ignored, and did not report would make your head spin. And the way the actually primary votes and caucuses were managed in several key states, including Maine and Washington, would make you grind your teeth. Suffice it to say that since a primary is all one party, it is the party that validates and transmits all vote counts to the press. The process has very little oversight by any independent reviewer. If challenges are made to the count in any district, all that happens is that district just disappears from the overall count and you hear things like for 2 weeks Maine had only 80% of districts reporting.

At this point we have the Dem candidate that the DLC and DNC wanted (for whatever reason) at the outset. I'm not sure that we shouldn't just go back to letting the party hacks pick the candidate at the conventions, since that's the way it is going to be eventually anyway. It would cost everybody less and would make the conventions more interesting.

And when I see McCain for the Republicans on TV, or for that matter, Dean for the Democrats, I feel that our current primary system has some serious, serious flaws. Whichever party, I don't see the most able guy getting the nod.

Some of the problem is the voters. 1. Not enough people vote in primaries. 2. People voting in primaries get hung up about who can win in Nov and not who is the most able guy. 3. A large percentage (I think I read it was over 40%) of people actually believe what they hear in political ads, all of which stretch the truth very very thin, whichever party you are in. 4. Negative ad campaigns disgust voters to the point of not voting. No wonder we are holding our noses to vote. This is a purposeful tactic by the parties. Then instead of a democratic process, we have a GOTV contest as to which party can get more of the unthinking party faithful to the polls.

Doris, I have very ambiguous feelings about the primary process. You are absolutely correct that it is pretty much a joke. However, doesn't the party have the right to nominate who they see fit? 4 years ago, Massachusetts gave a ringing endorsement to McCain. Had he won the nomination, I would have probably vote for him, despite disagreeing with much of his policies. However, doesn't the Republican party have the right to say "no, he does not really represent our party values, we want someone like Bush, who more fits our bill"?

I would add one more to your "list of problems". Most of us listen to the news we want. As a liberal, I listen to NPR -- arguably, this just confirms my liberal beliefs. A conservative may listen to FOX and also hear what they want to hear.

P.S. As to my experience with our Congressman. When my family was getting our US citizenship, my father and I got it, but my mother's file somehow slipped through the cracks. It was weird. They didn't lose it; in fact, every 6 months she would get a notification to get her fingers printers again (as if the old ones expire or something!). The lawyer wouldn't take this, because she was not actually refused. A week after we called Barny Frank's office, we got a letter from the INS inviting my mother for a tiny barely-official ceremony to receive her citizenship. Thank you Barny Frank!

When it comes down to it, I'm much farther to the left than Kerry, and I don't really like him that much. However, my #1 priority at this point is to get someone into the White House who will do a better job than Bush. They don't have to be my dream candidate, just someone who embodies my general ideals and who will hopefully run the country in a manner I loosely agree with...and most importantly, who has a chance at beating Bush. So, Kerry it is. Somewhat reluctantly, however. I voted for Kucinich in the primaries, so I feel like since I followed my true beliefs there, I can fudge it a little and do the "anyone but Bush" thing in the general election.

I'll be voting for Kerry. Doris you are right on about the state and local elections. THE reason Bush carried West Virginia last election was then State Senator now U.S. Representative Shelly Moore Capito. (R) Bush made several visits here to campaign and appear with her. Gore made none. That made a big imprtession on folks around here. I don't think they cared what he stood for just that he cared to show up. WV has only gone Republicn once before and that was for Reagan. So far this election Kerry had matched Bush visit fior visit. Another big concern ifor me is the status of Roe vs. Wade. I don't think a lot of younger women realize what their sisters went through before abortion was legal and safe. Make sure you are informed about the issues, and the candidates and don't forget to vote.

That's cool Toni. It's sad that what should be a medical decision between a woman and her doctor is a political issue. It is going to continue legal or not. The decision is do we want to keep it legal where it can be regulated and standards set to protect the patient or do we want to send it back underground where it will be performed by persons who would legally be criminals with no standards of care to protect the patient. The last person who should be forced to have a child is someone who doesn't want one. Some one who isn't responsible enough to use birth control already has a strike against them. In a lot of cases of incest those girls usually don't have families that they can talk to or who are supportive of them. The argument for adoption doesn't cut it unless you are only considering white, healthy babies. The foster care system is overwhelmed with sick children of all races that never seem to get adopted. That lots of single, disabled, or gay people who would make excellent parents are automatically disqualified doesn't help things either. JMO